That was Moncton, New Brunswick, but point taken.
the guy definitely has some unresolved issues.
This forecast has about a 5% chance of being vindicated retrospectively by future generations of scientists as being mostly on the mark.
That is another interesting thing about this whole debate. Science used to be a cooperative endeavor. Climate science is so polarized that there will be winners and losers in the historical record.
A couple generations from now, some group - either the Hansens and Manns or the Singers and Lindzens, are going to get the Lysenko Memorial award.
It is a matter of debate between people who study such things, which is not most climate scientists.
Good science isn't political at all; it merely describes reality. Climatology, as groups like the IPCC present it, isn't good science. It's a bunch of fudge-factor-laced models and ignored observations tightly wound around a political agenda. Basically, ignore what you can't explain, place assumptions anywhere the data is incomplete, draw conclusions that don't match up to reality, and pretend it all makes sense because you have "consensus".
I like science as much as anyone but the IPCC's actual predictive track record leaves me fairly underwhelmed.
The problem is that we need better data collection, more data collection, and a lot more work put into understanding the underlying mechanics of the system as a whole before we start drawing wide-reaching conclusions about the drivers of the whole thing
Yup. I've noted in my work that engineers tend to be more skeptical as a group in general. This probably sums up why;
http://judithcurry.com/2014/10... (long read but well worth it).
Basically the whole process is fixated on CO2 to basically the exclusion of all else. Suggesting anything else generally gets you ostracized. Oceans have only really entered the discussion recently and only because the models have been so bad. That's not the science I grew up with.
That is what adoption is for (though I know several gay people who have children from hetero relationships as well).
Sums it up well.
Government is a bigger threat to your rights and liberties than terrorists will ever be.
It will be either warmer or colder tomorrow too.
The proper thing to do would be to count all categories and figure out how much energy conversion each represents individually and cumulatively.
there is a direct correlation between the rise in fossil fuel use starting with the Industrial Revolution (~1850) and the incremental rise in global average temperatures.
No question it has been warming since at least 1850. Nothing unusual since then.
If you have a graph plotting CO2 emissions over that time period I would LOVE to see the correlation.
Even if we were able to improve climate models by leaps and bounds above the current ones (which themselves are pretty accurate), there would still be *some* uncertainty.
It's not that simple. No model will ever likely be entirely accurate, there will always be uncertainty. I'm not a climate scientist, but I know something about computing. In their large ensemble of models (I think there are around 30 of them in CMIP) you would expect some to overestimate, and some to underestimate, and observations (ie The Real World) would fall somewhere in the bell curve between if they represented an anywhere near realistic range of scenarios. That fact that they virtually ALL overestimate warming leads me to think there is something fundamentally wrong with the methodology across the entire group.
If they want us to trust them for anything important they should start by working on that. You don't have to be a climate scientists to think of where the problem might be.
New research suggests that the upper layer of the ocean has warmed more than had been thought previously while the deeper ocean has cooled rather than warmed in recent years.
A paper published today in Nature Climate Change finds climate models have greatly exaggerated global warming over the past 20 years, noting the observed warming is "less than half" of the modeled warming.
A new paper by prominent German climatologists Dr. Hans von Storch and Dr. Eduardo Zorita, et al, finds "that the continued [global] warming stagnation over fifteen years, from 1998 -2012, is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level
It sure was no record hot summer here in Manitoba, and last winter was the coldest since the late 1800s.
Given how bad their predictions are I don't lose any sleep.
I'll revisit when and if they actually have some track record of accuracy.
Don't let me interrupt your panic, though.